From: Victor Duchovni (Victor.DuchovniMorganStanley.com)
Date: Wed Feb 08 2006 - 13:13:04 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 10:18:10AM +0100, Luc Pardon wrote:

> Victor Duchovni wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 06:49:25PM +0100, Luc Pardon wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> * blacklist lookup failure: default 'dunno', override with '-d'
> >>to return 'defer_if_permit' instead.
> >>
> >> * whitelist lookup failure: default 'defer_if_reject', override
> >>with '-nd' to return 'dunno' instead.
> >>
> >Yes, this is the right approach, modulo careful choice of the switch
> >letters, and appropriate documentation.
> >
> >The use of short (single "-") multi-letter (e.g. "nd") options is not
> >consistent with Unix option processing standards (getopt(3)) and is best
> >avoided. Short options should be single letter or digit, with support
> >for the usual shorthand: "-nd" == "-n -d". GNU-style long options should
> >use two leading "-" characters, e.g. "--no-defer".
> >
> >I have no specific naming recommendations (which letters or long option
> >names to choose), other than the general advice to avoid inventing your
> >own conventions.
>
> OK, fair enough. I originally tried to avoid clutter in main.cf
> with single-letter options and then feature creep got in.
>
> I guess I'll try to come up with sensible long options first and
> then add (possibly cryptic) short options for people with short fingers.
>
> A few alternatives for the pair of -d and -nd switches described in
> the quote above:
>
> 1) --defer-untried-junkmail and --no-defer-untried-realmail
>
> 2) --defer-unconvicted-junkmail and --no-defer-unacquitted-realmail
>
> 3) --no-ignore-blacklist-failure and --ignore-whitelist-failure
>
> The 'ignore' version (#3) is probably more intuitive, but OTOH the
> 'defer' versions describe more precisely what is going on from Postfix's
> point of view. And the meaning of #2 might not be obvious for non-native
> English speakers. Therefore I'm tempted to pick #1, with appropriate
> docs to clarify 'untried' as 'trial could not be held because the judge
> could not be reached'.
>
> Of course nobody reads docs ... so maybe #3 after all?
>

I don't understand 1 or 2, so if it is up to me, I would choose 3.
Perhaps someone else has an entirely better idea, but 3 feels right.

--
        Viktor.

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majordomopostfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]